Talk:Yakub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

elijah muhammad messenger of allah is correct all the way

I'm so thrilled to learn that. Paul B 10:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to see racism alive and well....

Contents

[edit] "Shocked" Muslims

Observant Muslims might well have "reacted with shock" to the doctrine of Yakub because both the separate creation of different races, and the accompanying racial superiority/inferiority, are both contrary to Muhammad's rather specific comments in his last sermon, one of the great foundational texts of Islam.

Specifically, the relevant part of the Last Sermon reads in translation as:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white — except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood."

With superiority that means who has authority over another. That person doesn't control me and i don't control him. His skin color is weaker then a black person's because a black person's skin color would show up more then a white person if those two races had a baby.

I imagine that the "shock" was mostly their realization that they were talking to a crazy person. -- The Anome 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How can someone crazy give measurements of the Earth that Albert Einstein, one of your smartest men, couldn't do. In the 1930's we knew the measurements of the Earth and universe. You're crazy not to belive him.

Are you people telling me that people in modern-day America believe that anglo-Americans were created by an "evil black scientist" on a Greek island a few thousand years ago? If black people are stupid enough to believe that, no wonder they are easily dominated by the white man, as they cliam. -195.93.21.134
That's a racist comment if I've ever seen one. We are born with the intellect that God gave us, no more, no less. African Americans may embrace a number of unconventional ideas that seem foreign or even "stupid" to you and I, but for you to disparage them for it is just ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of their constant struggle to survive in an advanced society. -TrevorMay 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion that black people "struggle to survive in an advanced society" is racist and patronising in itself. Stupid ideas are just as stupid whoever has them, and to treat one group more indulgently is act as if they are children, who can be forgivern for having naive ideas. That's truly insulting. Paul B 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Statistically speaking, members of some groups in general have more or less difficulty prospering in an advanced society. Some of this stems from the ability to handle math, science, language, etc. This is not racist, it is just the way things are. If somebody is born with less intellectual capacity than yourself, it is your duty as a human being and as a member of the civilized world to treat them with respect, understanding, and dignity, even if they wind up making a number of poor decisions or holding beliefs that you find irrational. -TrevorMay 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Trevor, you have got to be a social worker or other liberal. Paul, I agree with you. Liberal racism is just as strong as ever, and allows the "niggaz," as they tend to refer to themselves, to continue to think they are superior to other people.JBDay 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Amazing. And I thought Christian Fundamentalists were crazy. -Neural 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's perfectly understandable for foreign cultures that are less "enlightened" to modern sciences and logic will come out with what we Westerners would call "stupid". But I'm sure to a manual labourer who's never seen a post-comprehensiv e education will not see this in the same way as us. To me personally, this is just as "stupid" as Christianity. Henners91 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has to be one of the funniest pages on Wikipedia.

the lads who dreamt this up were a crowd of washers away with the fairies

[edit] Irony

If one wishes to play word games as Yakub-ists are wont to do, then how is it reconciled that Heather Locklear's middle name is "Deen," which is an Arabic word essentially meaning "all-encompassing/lifestyle?" It has a strong meaning in Islam specifically, but other faiths use it as well. Her father is Lumbee, and they have +- 50% SSAfrican genetic material in their DNA. The Lumbee may have Moorish/North(East) African ancestry as well, as most likely do a lot of triracial groups. Perhaps that is originally where "Deen" in her family came from, although Sephardic Jews and or Christians from that region may have contributed as well. Farakhan told black men to stay away from "Heathers," meaning "white" women, but blacks fall for every scam perpetrated by darker skinned eastern Caucasians such as Fard? Word games...In Malta, they call "God," "Alla," no "h." JBDay 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ESQ TIENE UN NOMBRE MUY FEO SE DEBERIA LLAMAR BRAWAN QUE SE PRONUNCIA BRAWAN BUENO PERO EL NOMBRE DE YACUB NO ES PARA EL ES LA VERDAD.

Truth? English, please. JBDay 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Those unsigned posts by registered users never fail to amuse me. Cowards.JBDay 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudohistory

I deleted this category. I find it fanciful; even farcical, but this is a religious belief. Wikipedia does not take a position on truth. We are neutral and that category is anything but neutral when applied to religion or its beliefs. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) It is still psuedohistory just like the nephites of the book of mormon--Java7837 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not put it under catagory of racism? JBDay 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---Why not, indeed. Done.Kar98 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but while delete the "Sacred History" cat? Cannot a sacred history be racist? Me thinks so...--Rojerts 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find this page in the category of 'racism' with no more discussion on the topic but the above. Your simple misunderstanding or disagreement with an historical perspective does not seem to me to qualify that perspective as racist. What, exactly, are the conditions to be included in the category, and on what basis does the history and teachings of Yakub thereby qualify? I'll delete this page from the category, pending the resolution of this discussion. Llamabr 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "white race — a race of devils" does not qualify as racism, I don't know what does. Kar98 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jew rant

"...to reposition him as the originator of white people as a whole (including Jews)."

What's the point of mentioning yews as also belonging to the white race, why must they be so distinctive? And there are jewish members of the black race (to be politically correct), so that kind of stands against NOI policies. I understand, yews have suffered a lot in the past. But why keep pushing it beyond all reason? They want the same rights as everyone else. Then why *must* they always be mentioned separately? I got nothing against jewish religion or, if it indeed is a separate race, jewish people, except that they try to overequalize themselves. I understand that many will now think of me as an "anti-Semitic nazi estonian" (as if it wasn't bad enought that extremist russians call us so), and I will leave the decision, whether it should be removed or not, to someone else, for maybe I am anti-Semitic and just do not acknowledge it. BlahBlah, Woof Woof... Too much writing over a small thing that isn't really that important. Graphomaniac Laur Joost 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for mentioning Jews specifically is because Jacob in the Bible is only the parent of the Isrealites - the forefathers of modern Jews. However in some versions of British Israelism the ten Lost tribes of Israel are construed as the forefathers of White People in general. The Yakub story evolves from that theory. Paul B 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)